> As a procedural matter, I agree with Scott and John. This > document should not be considered for advancement at this > time nor until such time as there is real evidence of > widespread consensus. I have to agree with Scott, John and Ekr about this. It's not that change isn't needed, but rather that this set of changes hasn't received sufficient review and comment. I also agree with John's assessment that insufficient review given to process change has in the past opened the door to unintended consequences of various sorts. > As a substantive issue, renaming PS and DS to Preliminary > and Deplyable strikes me as a terrible idea. Whatever the > merits of the current names, they are the ones we have and > changing them now will only create confusion. Deployable > is a particularly bad choice since PSs are regularly > deployed. I'm by no means a fan of the current names (draft standard is IMO particularly problematic) but I agree with Ekr that this change is liable to cause more problems than it solves. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf